FAQ

Arianism considered the Son of God, Christ, not equal to the Father. Arius and his followers believed that the Son was begotten by the Father, but a) did not exist before He was begotten (that is, He is not eternal); b) is not without beginning; c) is not equal to the Father and d) is not consubstantial with the Father, i.e., He has a different essence (nature) and, therefore, is not fully God. Practically, this led to the Arians considering the Son to be a created being. After the defeat of the Arians at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, various factions began to develop within Arianism, differing in some details. However, they all held to a common view that disagreed with the Christian understanding of the Triune God and the Incarnation of the Son of God. One way or another, these movements can be classified into the category of anti-paradoxical: they did not accept the paradoxical description of God, mainly that God is one in the Trinity and Christ is fully God and fully man.

Christians, in their polemics against the Arians, rely on such words of Holy Scripture as "I and the Father are one" (Joh 17:21) and "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You" (Joh 10:30), as well as "[in Christ] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col 2:9) and a whole series of others. Furthermore, the Nicene and subsequent councils proceeded from the so-called soteriological criterion: in order for the salvation of humanity to be genuine, it is necessary that God Himself fully become man and share with us both our nature and our destiny, so that we might have the opportunity to share His life with Him.